When the 42nd Civil Chamber of the Munich Regional Court files into Courtroom 270 of the Justizpalast on the morning of July 31, 2026, it will deliver a verdict that much of the European music and AI industries have been waiting on for more than a year. The case is GEMA v. Suno, and the question at its center is one no European court has yet answered head-on: when an AI music generator is trained on copyrighted songs and produces tracks that sound "misleadingly similar" to them, is that infringement — and does Europe's text-and-data-mining exception offer any cover?
To be precise about where things stand: there is no ruling yet. The decision, originally scheduled for June 12, was pushed to July 31 "aus dienstlichen Gründen" — for internal court reasons — in a press notice dated late May. Any account suggesting a German court has already ruled against Suno is premature. What exists today is a fully argued case, a closely watched hearing held on March 9, and a court that has signaled, in a closely related matter, exactly how it reads the law.
What GEMA is asking the court to decide
GEMA — the German collecting society representing more than 100,000 composers, lyricists and publishers domestically and roughly two million rightsholders worldwide — filed suit against the US-headquartered Suno at the Munich Regional Court on January 21, 2025. The society alleges that Suno used, stored and reproduced copyrighted recordings to train its text-to-audio tool, and that the tool's outputs reproduce protected works without a license or remuneration.
The complaint is built around six well-known compositions, including "Atemlos," "Daddy Cool," "Rasputin," "Forever Young" and "Mambo No. 5." At the March hearing, GEMA presented evidence that Suno-generated tracks closely matched the originals in melody, harmony and rhythm. Notably, this case is about playable music — compositions and recordings — which GEMA describes as its "core business," distinguishing it from a parallel suit over song lyrics.
"The business models of generative AI providers are based on human creativity, such as that of our members," GEMA CEO Tobias Holzmüller said in a statement accompanying the hearing. "Appropriate remuneration, transparency, and respect for authors are indispensable, even in the age of AI." He added a pointed call for European self-determination: "We must not limit ourselves to adopting regulations that originate elsewhere."
GEMA's general counsel, Kai Welp, pressed the jurisdictional point that worries every foreign AI firm operating in Europe: "Like everyone else, providers of generative AI must respect copyright and remunerate authors for their creative work... This must also apply if the systems are trained outside the European Union and offered on the European market."
Why the OpenAI ruling looms over this one
The reason this pending decision carries such weight is that the same chamber, same court, has already shown its hand. On November 11, 2025, the Munich Regional Court ruled largely for GEMA in a separate suit against OpenAI (case 42 O 14139/24), finding that ChatGPT had reproduced protected German song lyrics — among them "Atemlos," "Männer" and "Über den Wolken" — without a license.
That decision did two things that matter enormously for Suno. First, it held that "memorization" — copyrighted content becoming embedded in model weights and retrievable through ordinary prompts — constitutes a reproduction under EU and German copyright law. Second, and crucially, it held that such memorization and regurgitation fall outside the text-and-data-mining (TDM) exception in Article 4 of the EU's 2019 Digital Single Market Directive. In the court's reading, the TDM carve-out covers the initial analytical phase of training, not the storage and reproduction of expressive content in the model or its output. OpenAI was ordered to cease the conduct, disclose the scope of its use and pay damages; the company has said it will appeal, and the judgment is not final.
If the chamber applies the same logic to music, Suno's room to argue a clean TDM defense narrows considerably — particularly because Suno's CEO has publicly acknowledged that copyrighted material was used in training, a concession that sits awkwardly beside a pure "transformative use" theory.
The AI Act backdrop and what's at stake
The litigation is arriving at the same moment Europe's statutory framework tightens. The EU AI Act's transparency obligations under Article 50 take effect August 2, 2026 — days after the scheduled verdict — requiring that AI-generated outputs be machine-readable and detectable as artificial. Separately, Article 53 obligates general-purpose AI model providers to publish a "sufficiently detailed summary" of training content and to honor rights reservations expressed under the same Article 4(3) TDM opt-out the Munich court has now interpreted narrowly. Courts and the legislature are, in effect, converging on the same principle: rightsholders can say no, and AI developers must build systems that respect it.
For generative-AI firms, the implications run beyond one verdict. A ruling for GEMA would establish, at the level of a major European court, that training abroad does not immunize outputs sold into the EU market, and that the TDM exception is no blanket license for memorized expression. That would strengthen the hand of collecting societies pushing for paid licensing markets rather than litigation-by-default — and it lands as Suno fights parallel suits from Sony and Universal in the US and from Denmark's Koda in Europe, even after raising $250 million at a $2.45 billion valuation.
What to watch on July 31: whether the chamber extends its memorization-and-reproduction reasoning from lyrics to melody and recordings; how squarely it addresses the TDM opt-out for music; and whether Suno, like OpenAI, signals an appeal to the Munich Higher Regional Court — the path that would eventually put these questions before the Court of Justice of the European Union, where a true Europe-wide precedent would finally be set.
"Like everyone else, providers of generative AI must respect copyright and remunerate authors for their creative work. This must also apply if the systems are trained outside the European Union and offered on the European market."- Kai Welp, General Counsel, GEMA